French Biotech Proposal Gives Up On Human Progress
July 28, 2000
A French Proposal To Ban Biotech Before Any Hint Of Danger May Herald A World Without The Courage To Experiment
CHURCHVILLE, Va - The French government is comparing genetically engineered food to mad cow disease. The French are demanding they be allowed to ban biotech products under the precautionary principle-even though they can find no danger.
Why would the French compare a powerful advance in humanity’s knowledge (biotechnology) to a deadly disease? Mad cow is a deadly but so- far-rare human disease that may be transmitted by European beef.
The French are correct that both mad cow disease and biotechnology involve uncertainty. But one is a frightening uncertainty, like the possibility of bubonic plague.
The other is an exciting, hopeful uncertainty, like electricity in the heady days when Thomas Edison was trying to invent the light bulb and Guglielmo Marconi was using the new energy source to invent radio.
I recently spent a day at the French embassy in Washington, listening to French experts explain why we should extend the precautionary principle from environmental policy to food safety. Their major motivation, of course, is to block the development of biotechnology in agriculture. Europe already has a farm surplus.
How would the precautionary principle be used? The French delegation stated that, “Recourse to the precautionary principle presupposes that potentially dangerous effects deriving from a phenomenon, product or process have been identified, and that scientific evaluation does not allow the risk to be determined with sufficient certainty.”
But when the French experts were asked what potentially dangerous effects had been linked to biotech foods, all they could offer was the risk of new allergies.
So far, no approved biotech crop or food has been found to cause allergies. One potential allergen was stopped in the research process. Naturally, if a biotech food were found to cause allergies, it would quickly be withdrawn.
But that’s not the end of the allergen discussion. Biotech researchers are also working to remove natural allergens form wheat, milk and peanuts. That would eliminate a natural danger for millions of allergic people. Biotech foods are thus likely to reduce our allergies, not aggravate them.
Meanwhile, a new rice variety has been given a corn gene for a higher rate of photosynthesis and gets 35 percent more yield. The world eats 400 million tons of milled rice a year, grown on about 400 million acres of land.
If we raised the yields by 35 percent, we’d save 140 million acres, either for more food or more wildlife. That’s about the same amount of land as India has in forests. Should we take the risk of using the new rice, or let the forests be destroyed, since Asia needs more rice for their growing and affluent population?
We’re spraying far less pesticide in the world today because of pest- resistant biotech corn and cotton. Cotton that carries a natural pesticide needs only one pesticide spray a year, instead of 15.
Should we take the precaution of spraying more pesticides instead of using biotech? Millions of kids in rice-based cultures are going blind from severe Vitamin A deficiency. A new biotech rice contains beta carotene, as in carrots, which the human body turns into Vitamin A. Should we “play it safe” and do nothing as these kids go blind?
When the Spaniards discovered America, they brought home a strange new plant called the tomato. Europeans thought it was poisonous; it belonged to the same plant family as the deadly nightshade.
Would advocates of precautionary principle have banned the tomato, or would they have simply run tests to find out if the new plant was really poisonous? Imagine trying to invent the pizza without the tomato, or eating spaghetti with squash sauce.
Is Europe telling us to test biotech products? We already do. Or is Europe telling us to ban the whole biotech food concept, since Europe already has enough food? Never mind that much of the rest of humanity is still hungry or malnourished.
Where would the world be today if the precautionary principle had been applied to electricity in 1850? Electricity is certainly dangerous. It electrocutes people in accidents and burns them to death in electrical fires. But without it, more people would die from eating spoiled food (no refrigerators) and from heat stroke (no fans or air conditioning).
We didn’t know then what electricity could do for us, but we had the courage and belief in our own good judgment to experiment. What happened to our courage and our belief in our own good judgment? Even the environment is getting better.
The population surge is nearing its end, our air quality is getting better, our water is cleaner and we’re doing a better job of protecting endangered species.
Biotechnology in agriculture should help all of those efforts become even more effective. On the other hand, if you like eating spaghetti with squash sauce in the dark, by all means, ban biotechnology.
DENNIS T. AVERY is based in Churchville, Va., and is director of global food issues for the Hudson Institute of Indianapolis. His views are not necessarily those of BridgeNews, whose ventures include the Internet site www.bridge.com.
OPINION ARTICLES and letters to the editor are welcome. Send submissions to Sally Heinemann, editorial director, BridgeNews, 3 World Financial Center, 200 Vesey St., 28th Floor, New York, N.Y. 10281-1009. You may also call (212) 372-7510, fax (212) 372-2707 or send e-mail to opinion@bridge.com.
Dennis T. Avery is based in Churchville, Va., and is director of global food issues for the Hudson Institute of Indianapolis.
Posted in Commentary |